McCall Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 And no, Bud is an imbecile and this is a wrong decision, but I don't think he did it to protect the Brewers.Hell, Bud tries so hard to be fair that he gave another team first crack at the NL, even though the city really wanted it.What team was that?Royals. They had first choice to switch but declined. https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 And no, Bud is an imbecile and this is a wrong decision, but I don't think he did it to protect the Brewers.Hell, Bud tries so hard to be fair that he gave another team first crack at the NL, even though the city really wanted it.What team was that?Royals. They had first choice to switch but declined.Huh, I never knew that. I would think that it would have been in their best interests to accept that offer, but what do I know? "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 How does this work out with scheduling now? Will there have to be an interleague matchup every week, or will 2 teams get off for a week because there are an odd number of teams in each league. Does anyone know how this works out?Interleague games going at all times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmoehrin Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Personally, I'd have moved the Colorado Rockies to the AL West and the Houston Astros to the NL West. With just a pair of franchises in Texas, I'd opt for maintaining one in each league and preserving the possibility of a Rangers-Astros World Series some day.If you have to do this, this is the best way. Let designated hitters roam free in Denver.Except Coors has been a pitcher's park ever since they brought in the humidor.FWIW Minute Maid Park is the perfect AL stadium and belongs in that league.I've always viewed Minute Maid as a better pitcher's park version of Fenway.Lefties cannot pitch in that stadium, and if you've noticed how the Astros have built their team over the last decade its been very righty heavy both pitching and hitting wise. Andy Pettitte, Randy Wolf and Wandy Rodriguez are the only three guys I can think of that were lefty pitchers and had any type of success at Minute Maid. Michael Bourn is the only lefty hitter the Astros have had that's been any good. Just about everyone has either been a switch hitter or a righty.But if your a righty pitcher there its not bad at all. 326 down the line, 373 to the power alley, 436 to center. You can work with that.All in all I'd rate the park a slight hitters park. Its great for righties, terrible for lefties. Its certainly not the best in baseball and I would rate Miller Park over Minute Maid for being a better hitters park in the NL Central. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See Red Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Personally, I'd have moved the Colorado Rockies to the AL West and the Houston Astros to the NL West. With just a pair of franchises in Texas, I'd opt for maintaining one in each league and preserving the possibility of a Rangers-Astros World Series some day.If you have to do this, this is the best way. Let designated hitters roam free in Denver.Except Coors has been a pitcher's park ever since they brought in the humidor.FWIW Minute Maid Park is the perfect AL stadium and belongs in that league.Coors Field is still one of the best hitters parks in the league, actually. Just not nearly as bad as it used to be.http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactorEven with the humidor there's an above average number of HR's and the spacious outfield leaves a lot of grass that outfielders have to cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GFB Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 I guess the Astros have to make money somehow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ESTONES6 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 I was against the Astros move. I like the idea of keeping States that have multiple teams in separate leagues. Although inter-league play convolutes the separate leagues, it was still somewhat of an event or had some sort of additional impact when you only play one 3-game series in each city, a la Cleveland/Cincinnati, Texas/Houston, Kansas City/St. Louis, NY/NY, etc.I know people a brick when I say it, but I much rather would have seen the Pirates jump over to the AL (or how about the Phillies in the AL East with NY and Boston). I know Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are completely different cities, different, economic markets, and history, but I think it would have been nice to have separate leagues.I think if the Pirates or the Phillies were to jump, to would have required a lot more realigning, but again, I think it would have been more appealing in the long run - especially if you put the Phillies, Yankees, and Boston in the same division and let negate their large payrolls (although I think the need for a salary cap, in some cases, is grossly overblown). SAINT IGNATIUS WILDCATS | CLEVELAND BROWNS | CLEVELAND CAVALIERS | CLEVELAND INDIANS | THE OHIO STATE BUCKEYES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illwauk Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 And no, Bud is an imbecile and this is a wrong decision, but I don't think he did it to protect the Brewers.Hell, Bud tries so hard to be fair that he gave another team first crack at the NL, even though the city really wanted it.What team was that?Royals. They had first choice to switch but declined.Huh, I never knew that. I would think that it would have been in their best interests to accept that offer, but what do I know?You'd think the Royals would jump at the chance to be in the same league as St. Louis and Colorado, but I'm definitely glad they didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCall Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 I was against the Astros move. I like the idea of keeping States that have multiple teams in separate leagues. Although inter-league play convolutes the separate leagues, it was still somewhat of an event or had some sort of additional impact when you only play one 3-game series in each city, a la Cleveland/Cincinnati, Texas/Houston, Kansas City/St. Louis, NY/NY, etc.I know people a brick when I say it, but I much rather would have seen the Pirates jump over to the AL (or how about the Phillies in the AL East with NY and Boston). I know Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are completely different cities, different, economic markets, and history, but I think it would have been nice to have separate leagues.I think if the Pirates or the Phillies were to jump, to would have required a lot more realigning, but again, I think it would have been more appealing in the long run - especially if you put the Phillies, Yankees, and Boston in the same division and let negate their large payrolls (although I think the need for a salary cap, in some cases, is grossly overblown).You're not gonna switch two of the longest tenured NL teams. Plain and simple. https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted November 16, 2011 Author Share Posted November 16, 2011 I was against the Astros move. I like the idea of keeping States that have multiple teams in separate leagues. Although inter-league play convolutes the separate leagues, it was still somewhat of an event or had some sort of additional impact when you only play one 3-game series in each city, a la Cleveland/Cincinnati, Texas/Houston, Kansas City/St. Louis, NY/NY, etc.I know people a brick when I say it, but I much rather would have seen the Pirates jump over to the AL (or how about the Phillies in the AL East with NY and Boston). I know Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are completely different cities, different, economic markets, and history, but I think it would have been nice to have separate leagues.I think if the Pirates or the Phillies were to jump, to would have required a lot more realigning, but again, I think it would have been more appealing in the long run - especially if you put the Phillies, Yankees, and Boston in the same division and let negate their large payrolls (although I think the need for a salary cap, in some cases, is grossly overblown).You're not gonna switch two of the longest tenured NL teams. Plain and simple.Nope. Not outside of a 'radical realignment' plan, and if that ever happened, the Pirates and Phillies would wind up in the same division, because such a realignment would be completely geographically based. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viper Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 And no, Bud is an imbecile and this is a wrong decision, but I don't think he did it to protect the Brewers.Hell, Bud tries so hard to be fair that he gave another team first crack at the NL, even though the city really wanted it.What team was that?Royals. They had first choice to switch but declined.As I recall, Selig even "offered" the Twins third priority to move to the NL behind the Royals and Brewers, though this was likely just another fig-leaf gesture just like the Royals.As for the DH, Grantland had a piece several months ago explaining why the DH is not likely to either be eliminated from the AL or adopted by the NL anytime soon. Not surprisingly, it has much more to do with money than tradition. I don't recall the link, but the heart of the matter is that because the DH means having one more everyday player on each AL roster, AL club payrolls average over $10M more than NL club payrolls. Predictably, for this reason the players' union favors the DH and would oppose its elimination from the AL as fiercely as they do a salary cap. But NL owners oppose adopting the DH just as fiercely for the very same reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmoehrin Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 As for the DH, Grantland had a piece several months ago explaining why the DH is not likely to either be eliminated from the AL or adopted by the NL anytime soon. Not surprisingly, it has much more to do with money than tradition. I don't recall the link, but the heart of the matter is that because the DH means having one more everyday player on each AL roster, AL club payrolls average over $10M more than NL club payrolls. Predictably, for this reason the players' union favors the DH and would oppose its elimination from the AL as fiercely as they do a salary cap. But NL owners oppose adopting the DH just as fiercely for the very same reason.Makes sense. I know with arbitration cases the percentage of players winning their cases is about 50% simply because if it was any higher or lower the owners or union would go crazy.My personal view on the DH is while I'm against it I don't feel like it would be all that terrible at the big league level. The only thing I openly object to with the DH is having it at levels of play lower then AA. I'm not a big fan of promoting specialization like that at lower levels. There shouldn't be anybody getting called up to the bigs that hasn't played in the field since high school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 The Royals weren't a "fig leaf", we all seriously expected then to make the switch at the time for the intrastate rivalry that would create. They decided that their rivalry with the Yankees was more valuable than creating one with the Cardinals. How's that working out for them now? The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted November 16, 2011 Author Share Posted November 16, 2011 The Royals weren't a "fig leaf", we all seriously expected then to make the switch at the time for the intrastate rivalry that would create. They decided that their rivalry with the Yankees was more valuable than creating one with the Cardinals. How's that working out for them now?Not to mention that they'd have had at least two teams in the NL Central to be atop of in the standings every year (the Pirates, and insert whatever team is underperforming for a season here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 We spent the 1997 season comparing standings between the AL and NL Centrals, trying to figure out where the Brewers would be if they switched. Of course, they wouldn't have played the same schedule, but we still wondered.Even so many years later, I still can't believe that the Royals passed up a chance at so many regular games with St. Louis. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCall Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 The latest. https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBGKon Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 I can't seem to find a link, but I heard it on my local sports talk radio station, that the new collective bargaining agreement will allow for 2-15 team leagues, an extra wild card per league, and some changes to the draft and the competitive balance (luxury) tax.Note: You've never heard recently that Houston's going to the AL West, just that they're going to the AL itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCall Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 There's been no talk of no divisions. They let that idea go back in the summer. If they weren't having divisions, then there'd be 4 wild cards and only one "division" champ. They've said either an "extra" wild card or a 2nd. That would imply in addition to the one and therefore implying divisions are remaining intact. https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 There's been no talk of no divisions. They let that idea go back in the summer. If they weren't having divisions, then there'd be 4 wild cards and only one "division" champ. They've said either an "extra" wild card or a 2nd. That would imply in addition to the one and therefore implying divisions are remaining intact.Yep. Looks like the big changes are the Astros move to the AL and the added wild card. No dropping divisions. No DH in the NL. No futzing around with further realignment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbadefense1990 Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I'd just switch back to two divisions per league.AL East:NYY, BOS, TB, TOR, BAL, DET, CLEAL West:ANA, OAK, SEA, TEX, CWS, MIN, KCNL East:NYM, PHI, MIA, WSH, STL, CHC, PIT, MILNL West:LA, SD, SF, ARI, COL, CIN, HOU, ATLEach division qualifies the top 2 teams in its standings for the Division Series. If #1 and #2 are tied, then HFA goes by head-to-head record in the regular season. If #2 and #3 are tied, then tiebreaker game shall be played. The LCS would then be truly matched up btw the NL/AL East and West champs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.